Important notice from the GRAMMAR POLICE. Plz read. This means you.
teebs:
Quote from: rohina on 2009 June 11, 21:49:11
teebs, if your IQ is 162 that puts you in the upper third of MATYzens. Just. And that's only because we have all the barely literate turds in the bottom third to even us out. Mensa membership doesn't even get you considered for a post in the Grammar Police, so good try waving your academic dick, but it is just a little tiddler.
Out of the approximate 6500 members who post, there are over 2150 MATYans who fall into the top 99.99% intellectually? That is quite an achievement. Of course when I said "documented IQ" I didn't mean they received an email from free-iqtest.net.
I am well aware that I am not the most brilliant of the brilliant. I lost a chess match to a nine year old; rather than anger I experienced only awe and joy at witnessing a game played so masterfully. I have no ego to bruise. Try again.
Quote from: rohina on 2009 June 11, 21:49:11
I am quite sure there are a few crackpots, cheaters, users and sluts (who sleep with their profs) getting PhDs, but the proportion of actual morons doing so is going to be fairly small. Why? Because actual morons would have trouble writing a dissertation that gets passed by outside examiners. You conveniently glossed over my main point, though, which was that a moron with a PhD, even assuming such an animal exists, is highly unlikely to get a job in the current climate. Because actual bright competent people can't even manage that, a lot of the time. You only have to read the Chronicle of Higher Education or RYS for a couple days to figure that out.
I didn't gloss over anything. You may be right on that point, and as I already stated; Quote from: teebs on 2009 June 11, 18:11:39
This isn't to say I believe that of all professors. In fact, I don't believe it to be the case with the majority, based on my own experience.
It doesn't change the fact that there are already morons with PhD's teaching in universities.
Quote from: rohina on 2009 June 11, 21:49:11
You say "the role of the professor is to educate within their [sic] field of expertise. Period." Which statement you make apparently in an effort to go "case closed, so there," but in order TO educate within my field of expertise, I have to teach a bunch of skills like critical thinking, and analysis. If I don't teach students what to do with the material, how can I teach the material? If I don't give my students an understanding of feminism, how can they read Virginia Woolf? If I don't help them come to grips with modernism and colonialism, how can they read Heart of Darkness?
Since critical thinking and analysis, as well as a working knowledge of modernism and colonialism were very likely required for you to attain your degree, wouldn't you say that falls under the purview of your field of expertise? Does this mean you are competent to teach colonial history or critical analysis of modernist art? Further, does it make you an expert on sociopolitical topics? Perhaps you are competent to teach these subjects, but if that is the case, I would argue that it is due to your intellect rather than your degree.
Quote from: rohina on 2009 June 11, 21:49:11
It's the same in nearly every discipline. There are theories and ideas underlying areas of study that may not be apparent to the average undergrad, and it is the professor's job to at least introduce students to these ideas. Good profs will challenge students' assumptions and make them think rather than spoonfeeding the material needed for the exam.
Again I would argue that the underlying theory and idea falls under the scope of the discipline. I agree that good professors should challenge their student's assumptions and make them think, but making them analyze the subject from all sides, whether it parallels one's own beliefs or not, is just as important. It is not the responsibility of the professor to develop a curriculum that insinuates his or her own belief system into the minds of a captive audience.
By the way, I really have no interest in joining the "Grammar Police." It takes up far too much of your time. 9266 posts in not quite four years. You've averaged nearly 7 posts EVERY DAY in that time. Thanks, but I have this thing called a "life" and I prefer to spend my days doing real life "stuff". In a month or so, I'm going to a place called "outside" and because it's a really big place, I'm going to drive my motorcycle all over it for about three months, or maybe six. I haven't decided just how long yet.
While I'm sure that logging on here and posting every single day for four years is not a signifier of a boring and tedious life, I am quite sure my need to do "stuff" and go "outside" in "real life" would seriously impede my performance as an "Officer of Grammatical Rules and Enforcement". So, as devastating as it is to discover that I am too stupid to qualify for such a sought after and vaunted position, I suppose I can and will carry on. It may require sandy beaches, a couple of bikini-clad tarts and a buttload (no, literally a buttload) of tequila, but I'm firm in my position that I will survive...
Quote from: Kyna on 2009 June 12, 01:20:18
Professors aren't just teaching the subject matter (which is their field of expertise), they're also teaching how to analyse the material, as employers are far more interested in whether a graduate has analytical skills than on whether the graduate is an expert in a very narrow field, such as a thesis on outliers in data mining.
Point taken Kyna and hopefully addressed above.
Salomon:
Quote from: teebs on 2009 June 12, 01:39:39
I am well aware that I am not the most brilliant of the brilliant. I lost a chess match to a nine year old; rather than anger I experienced only awe and joy at witnessing a game played so masterfully. I have no ego to bruise. Try again.
I don't get this part, in chess strength is very well defined, and kids can get more easily to a decent level than adults, so, even if you were the most brilliant of the brilliant, an averagely trained 9 6 years old is going to beat you at your first game, and probably continuously until you get more experience.
Chess ability is not necessarily tied to brilliancy either, see Alan Turing, a genius that developed the first computer algorithm, and hypothetical computation engines (now known as Turing Machines)* and first chess playing algorithm, yet he was really awful at chess.
*Part in italic copy-pasted.
professorbutters:
Quote from: teebs on 2009 June 12, 01:39:39
Thanks, but I have this thing called a "life"
It's been my experience that when a person new to MATY posts something like this, they almost inevitably turn out to be a tard, probably because anyone who has the time to brag on an online forum about how they have a life does not really have a life.
One person's balance and showing all sides of an issue is another person's "indoctrination." This is why there is such strict protection for academic freedom on campus. I am especially careful not to use my position as a bully pulpit. I teach in a state school and generally I'm careful not even to reveal my religious or political affiliations. But even teaching Renaissance literature, I'm bound to step on some toes. Some people do not want to be exposed to readings in which any homoerotic desire is even possible: in their view, Antonio suffers all the stuff he does for Bassanio because they are just Real Good Pals. You wouldn't think you could get into trouble by explaining about double predestination, but I've had students (in the nicest possible way) say to me that they were SURE Christians couldn't have believed anything like that in the sixteenth century because THEY were Christians and THEY didn't believe that. (I pointed them, also in the nicest possible way, towards John Calvin.)
I am sure an angry student could transform that into my pushing a radical anti-Christian homosexual agenda on my students. There are morons in all walks of life. And some of them run FrontPage.
teebs:
Quote from: Basura on 2009 June 12, 02:34:52
I don't get this part, in chess strength is very well defined, and kids can get more easily to a decent level than adults, so, even if you were the most brilliant of the brilliant, an averagely trained 9 6 years old is going to beat you at your first game, and probably continuously until you get more experience.
Chess ability is not necessarily tied to brilliancy either, see Alan Turing, a genius that developed the first computer algorithm, and hypothetical computation engines (now known as Turing Machines)* and first chess playing algorithm, yet he was really awful at chess.
*Part in italic copy-pasted.
I'm rather good at chess. He was far superior. We were not playing in an organized event and had no prior knowledge of one another as players. He is the son of a friend. We have played a number of times and I can count on one hand the times I've won. This is not really the salient point.
Many adults (particularly those with much higher than average IQs) find it difficult to have their intellect put into question by anyone, much less a child. While I admit a certain level of arrogance and therefore felt somewhat humbled, it was a most enjoyable surprise. One can question my intelligence all one wants. I am completely comfortable with who I am.
I disagree with your second statement. While there are types of brilliance not suited to chess, brilliance of some sort is required. Alan Turing was a genius, but in what context? Chess is far more than computation. Among other things chess requires strong spacial ability, planning and efficiency and an ability to quickly and accurately gauge one's opponent. Further, it takes years of commitment to achieve any sort of expertise at chess. It may take a combination of qualities to become a great player, but intellectual brilliance most certainly plays a part.
I'll readily admit that I know little beyond the basics about Alan Turing. Was he a dedicated chess player? Was he a spacial thinker?
Thank you, Basura, as well as everyone else for the stimulating discourse.
rohina:
teebs, you are hilarious. You have posted more than 7 times today. Does this mean you, too, have no life?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page